Save a Speaker of the House from drowning?

[D'kian]

Can you even dive after the Speaker of the House without an Act of Congress?

If I did, I'd have a lawyer draft a waiver of liability first, and she'd damnd well have to sign before I pull her out of the water.

On the other hand, doesn't the speaker have an Air Force rescue chopper standing by for just such emergencies?

Finally:

The Speaker of the House finds herself cut off from her entourage in the middle of a flood. Luckily she happened to be on the roof of a house at the time, so the waters don't threaten her immediately.

An Objectivist passes by on a rowboat and says "Jump in! I'll get you to higher ground."

"No," the Speaker replies. "I'll wait for my private Air Force jet."

As the waters climb, a Republican passes by on a motor boat and says "Jump in! I'll get you to safety."

"No," the Speaker replies. "I'll wait for my private Air Force jet."

The waters now are lapping at the roof. A Caost Guard chopper comes by. "Grab the rescue ring!" the chopper pilot says through a loudspeaker. "We'll get you out."

"No," the Speaker replies. "I'll wait for my private Air Force jet."

The waters finally rise anough to claim the Speaker, who drowns.

Meanwhile in the Capitol in DC an Air Force General testifies before a commitee: "We are sorry about the Speaker's untimely demise, Mr. Chairman. However, you must understand our limitations. We sent two civilians and the Coast Guard to get her out, but she insisted on being rescued by a large jet which would either land on the water or hover in mid-air. As you ladies and gentlemen know, that plane is still in development. So if you'll just grant the Secretary's request for the Special Congressional Projects item in next year's budget....."

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

So a ''speaker of the house'' somehow is drowning in a body of water somewhere in the Netherlands and I was taking a walk and found her.

I'd shout out for the candid camera guys to come out.

That aside, I would probably not recognise them because while I memorise the name's used in foreign political discussions their heads appear in the papers here.

And seeing a stranger in such a position I'd first assume they are good folk and try to save them.

Assuming that I do recognise this person I would be curious enough to warrant me saving them.

Seriously, a foreign politician doesn't take a dip in a Dutch river with no reason.

[brian0918]

Has anyone documented the best argument against even considering these unlikely scenarios?

[Capitalism Forever]

I see it simply as an attempt to determine if there is consistency in Objectivist thought. Based on the replies so far, there isn't.

By "consistency in Objectivist thought," do you mean all Objectivists giving the same response to any specific lifeboat scenario? If so, then it's clear that there isn't, and there needn't be, either. Objectivist ethics does not address lifeboat scenarios.

The only person I know about who regularly faces such decisions is the guy who writes the plot lines for 24. In real life, goverment agents, troops, and cops may find themselves in "lifeboats" occasionally--but even for them, such situations will be the exception rather than the norm, especially if the government has been effective at making the nation safe from its enemies. Although these people do often need to take risky actions, they usually do so as a part of their job description--i.e., the decision to take the risk was made when they signed up for the job; they don't get to sit there in the "lifeboat" and ponder whether or not they should follow the operating procedures of their unit. Providing them a guide to action is the task of the authors of the operating procedures, not of philosophers; philosophy only provides a general principle, namely that a life as a slave is not worth living--and therefore defending freedom, even at the risk of one's life, is good.

A similar argument applies to jobs with private organizations dedicated to defending people from man-made or natural disasters, e.g. the firefighters.

As for ad-hoc "should I save her?" dilemmas faced by non-professionals, the general philosophical principle is: Save her if and only if it is the best action you can take to further your life qua man. Beyond this, philosophy cannot go into specifics; it cannot undertake to give detailed guidance on every situation you might face in life because if it did, OPAR would be longer than the Encyclopedia Britannica and no one could read it in a lifetime. Philosophy only goes into detail in areas that are common to everyone's life and significant enough to warrant special attention--such as cognition, trade, politics, art, and love. Even the question of eating ice cream is not addressed by philosophy, even though there are at least a million times as many people in the West who make decisions about eating ice cream than ones who make decisions about saving Nancy Pelosi. So that should answer your concern about a lack of consistency uniformity of Objectivist thought--and as for why I am not interested in discussing this as a non-philosophical, general-interest topic: personally, too, I consider ice cream to be a subject much more worthy of my interest than the lousy life of a little nobody who isn't dying in reality anyway.

[softwareNerd]

Has anyone documented the best argument against even considering these unlikely scenarios?

I'm not sure this example qualifies as a "lifeboat scenario". The fact that they're unlikely is one important aspect of a lifeboat scenario. However, I think there's a second element: the unlikely scenario discards some basic premise underlying the principle being "tested" (in this case some principle in Ethics).

For instance, studying reality one can conclude that people's interests need not be in conflict (in the sense that Rand means this). On this foundation, one can built some rules of ethical social interaction. Now, someone can come up with a lifeboat example where interests do conflict. Another such example would be where you have to throw a train switch to decide which of two people will die.

There's nothing wrong with such examples. They're a wrong way to get an answer using the principle (because they violate a premise on which the principle is based. However, they're can be a good way to highlight those underlying premises. The general answer to true life-boat cases is this: they violate the context of the principle (the premises on which the principle is based), and therefore cannot be answered using the principle. Check out this discussion for more.

With all that said, I don't think your example quite fits that "lifeboat" mold. I see your underlying question as being something along the lines of: "how evil is someone like the speaker?" or, perhaps, "would it make a big difference to our lives if the speaker did not exist?" Maybe that's wrong... how would you frame the underlying question that is being asked, via this example?

[Capitalism Forever]

For instance, studying reality one can conclude that people's interests need not be in conflict (in the sense that Rand means this).

An important qualification here is that there is no conflict of interest among rational men. If somebody chooses to be irrational, that creates a potential for conflict between him and anyone else.

Further, it should be noted that the context in which this applies is normal situations in a free society. It does not necessarily apply when force has been initiated by a third party, nor in emergencies.

Now, someone can come up with a lifeboat example where interests do conflict. [...] I don't think your example quite fits that "lifeboat" mold.

I would say that even a simple "stranger drowning" scenario has a potential for conflict of interests, in the case when it is not in my rational self-interest to save the drowner. I do not think this is what makes the difference between lifeboat and legit questions. I would say that the essence of a lifeboat scenario is that it is made up. This covers both the unrealistic/unlikely aspect and the deliberately-problematic aspect--and shows the contrast between the approach of Objectivist ethics, which is to look at the events that occur in actual reality and induce principles of action from them, and the approach of the "lifeboat inventors," which is to look at a system of ethics and "test" it by probing whether it can give the "right" answer (i.e. an emotionally-satisfying one) in artificial scenarios specifically engineered for the purpose.

You're right that we would need to know the exact motive of why this question was discussed. If it indeed came up in the context of a debate on "how evil is someone like the speaker?" or "would it make a big difference to our lives if the speaker did not exist?" then of course I see no problem with it. "She's evil enough for me to let her drown if I could save her, but not evil enough for me to deliberately toss her into the water" is a resourceful and expressive way of quantifying one's moral judgment of a person.

But from the background info that was given in the opening post ("people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil [... to other things]") and from the comment "I see it simply as an attempt to determine if there is consistency in Objectivist thought," it looks to me like it may well have been discussed as an ethical question of its own right, which I maintain is a complete waste of time.

[wilicyote]

Another aspect of "lifeboat situations" is that whenever I try to add detail in order to answer the question like I would in real life, the one proposing the "lifeboat situation" modifies it to exclude my details. In other words it is deleberately designed to remove all connection to real life, i.e. reality.

For example, since I am an amature boat builder, I immediately begin talking about modifying the lifeboat to increase ballast, or gain speed by rigging makeshift sails, or dragging lines to catch fish, etc... I always get shot down, "No, no, no, none of those things are possible on "OUR" lifeboat. To which I respond, OK then since I am a magnificient swimmer and able to navigate by the stars I will just swim of toward land, as it is certainly better than bobbing about in your lousey boat anyway.

Edited March 24, 2009 by wilicyote

[wilicyote]

Now to the question at hand:

Whether I choose to save anyone from any harm or death is directly related to my value judgement of them. In this context I am reasonably benevolant. I will attempt to save strangers because I do so love life, and assume they do as well. However, everyone else is judged, as is my obligation (employing Rand's virtue of justice), and gets treated accordingly. If they deserve death, I let them drown. If they deserve life but also deserve a stern ass chewing, this is exactly what I will give them. etc....

Real. Life.

[K-Mac]

I think I would save her. Although I could care less if the people that are doing their best to ruin me and make my life miserable were to die, I don't think I could be the one to pull the trigger unless it was self-defense. As long as they're attacking me legislatively and philosophically, I think my counter attack should be on that same level.

Although it conjures up hilarious, Family Guy type scenarios in my head...

"Where's it coming from?!"

[Women screaming, children crying, people running around like chicken's with their head's cut off]

"I think it's coming from the [crooked, statist government official's] office!"

"There she is! With the Hello Kitty assault rifle!"

[wilicyote]

gotta get me one of those!!

[Maximus]

Your opponent would be so distracted laughing at that thing you'd have time to draw a good bead on his forehead.

As to the politician, I'd throw him/her a large rock as a flotation device.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Maximus

[K-Mac]

...running around like chicken's with their head's cut off...

WTF? I was apostrophe crazy yesterday.

I thought it would be a nice bit of added humiliation to kill a commie with a pink, Hello Kitty gun.

[brian0918]

Thanks Roland and Darius for the great replies!

[01503]

I thought it would be a nice bit of added humiliation to kill a commie with a pink, Hello Kitty gun.

Especially since Hello Kitty is a product of the evil capitalist corporations.

[Space Patroller]

We had a debate at an Objectivist meetup yesterday about a scenario in which you have the opportunity to save a certain notable Speaker of the House from drowning. If you do not, nobody will know. If you do, maybe they will, depending on your ability to convince them of your actions. In any case, people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil (e.g. "I would help this person, but not Hitler"), whether or not their evil is excusable if it is not as obvious to them as murder, etc. I'd like to see articulated the proper way to examine this situation, if such a thing exists.

The only consideration would be what are the facts, resutls and how responsible is this person? Well the Conress sucks and the speaker is a grownup so is responsible for what she does. She is also the head honchette so she's flying the ship and it's not on auto-pilot so it's All her, all the time and all the way. To anyone hopeing for some conversion. The Axiomatic Concept of cards is "Bet on your hand, not the draw". I just gave you something that took me years to learn. Besides, if you have to think it through at that time. the event will bypass you. We think things through in times of calm so that we know what to do and not do when there's no time to think it all out. when the shit hits the fan, it hits it NOW, FAST and HARD and if you don't know what to do, I would not want to be standing next to you. I've had my life endangered in a matter of seconds. These are words to live by "Stay sharp, stay slick, stay alive".

Now my answer; and more importantly, why.

Nope. I'd use the Rahm Emanuel Theorem: Never let a crisis go to waste and if my inaction can cause one in the moocher-looter camp, well that puts me two up. It would force a new house election and maybe some good would come of that. Why help my sworn enemy? the only good enemy is a dead one and besides that's one more seat up for grabss. Hey, can I help it if I play for keeps? Like the song says "I used to roll the dice: Feel the fear in my enemies' eyes"

Now, if Barack Obama's teleprompter broke, I'd be there to fix it wit bells on, who knows what I could sneak in there? Imagine him giving a stemwinder of a speech on health care, all read of course, and concluding with. "...and we all want the same kind of care that the VA gives. Right?"

Edited March 25, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Space Patroller]

I would save her. She has not murdered anyone, she is not guilty of something that would sentence her to death and if it's of little effort to me, then I would preserve human life.

How about she's a participant in the murder of America?

[Space Patroller]

We had a debate at an Objectivist meetup yesterday about a scenario in which you have the opportunity to save a certain notable Speaker of the House from drowning. If you do not, nobody will know. If you do, maybe they will, depending on your ability to convince them of your actions. In any case, people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil (e.g. "I would help this person, but not Hitler"), whether or not their evil is excusable if it is not as obvious to them as murder, etc. I'd like to see articulated the proper way to examine this situation, if such a thing exists.

What a silly question. I though that everyone knows that Democrats walk on water so how could that happen?

[Scott_Connery]

I would happily let a tyrant drown, even if everyone would find out about it.

The situation reminds me of the Twain quote: I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction.

[K-Mac]

Treason is punishable by death. I would say quite a few people up in D.C. are guilty of treason.

[Space Patroller]

Treason is punishable by death. I would say quite a few people up in D.C. are guilty of treason.

One can, by law, only commit treason in time of (declared) war

We have no sedition laws: dammit.

Bring back the HUAC!

[brian0918]

Treason is punishable by death. I would say quite a few people up in D.C. are guilty of treason.

That seems like context dropping to me, though. Whether or not someone has acted treasonable is objectively determined in a court of law. Both sides present their cases and evidence, and a jury/judge determine the verdict/punishment. It is only in that context that the death penalty can be handed down. So if you're trying to use it to justify your (in)action, it would also justify vigilante and private police forces, no?

[Jake_Ellison]

Treason is punishable by death. I would say quite a few people up in D.C. are guilty of treason.

Treason is actively aiding the enemy in its fight against one's country. So none people in DC are guilty of treason-at least not to my (or your) knowledge.

(There may be the occasional member of the many agencies, on a Chinese or Iranian payroll.)

P.S. I'm not disputing (or agreeing with) whatever answer you wish to give to the original question. Just sayin'

Edited March 26, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[K-Mac]

One can, by law, only commit treason in time of (declared) war

War on Terror doesn't count?

So if you're trying to use it to justify your (in)action, it would also justify vigilante and private police forces, no?

I said I would save her, but I agree that they should have their day in court.

Treason is actively aiding the enemy in its fight against one's country.

I was using this definition, although it may be (and probably is) different than whatever definition US law uses. IMO, they are treasonous because they are destroying this country and our Constitution.

At any rate, it was more a passing comment based on other people's posts than an actual suggestion.

[Space Patroller]

War on Terror doesn't count?

I did mention declared (a pity) but I like the way you think. However, it seems that Terror is winning.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

War on Terror doesn't count?

Not formally a declared war. And even if it were, "the enemy" would be the terrorists, so someone plotting to socialize the US would not be guilty of treason even though they are harming us.